Professional Documents
Culture Documents
[ A.M. No. MTJ-22-007 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-3026-MTJ). March 09, 2022 ]
CAGUIOA, J:
In their verified Complaint1 dated January 7, 2019, complainants Marcelino Espejon
and Erickson Cabonita (complainants) charged Judge Jorge Emmanuel M. Lorredo
(Judge Lorredo), Presiding Judge of Branch 26 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC)
of Manila of prejudging Civil Case No. M-MNL-18-08450-SC,2 and of bias and partiality.
Civil Case No. M-MNL-18-08450-SC involved a case for unlawful detainer filed by
Myrna Alcantara,3 et al. against herein complainants and was presided by Judge
Lorredo.4
THE CASE
Complainants alleged that during the preliminary conference, Judge Lorredo made
remarks showing his prejudgment of the case and obvious bias and partiality against
them and their sexual orientation. They also averred that Judge Lorredo's treatment and
conduct of Civil Case No. M-MNL-18-08450-SC was heavily influenced by his religious
beliefs and impressions about homosexuality which he irrelevantly tried to relate to the
case.
Judge Lorredo expounded that the transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) would
reveal that he was only warning complainants about God's punishment for those who
violate His commandments. Citing Biblical passages, Judge Lorredo said he explained
to complainants that refusing to vacate the property was tantamount to stealing the
property rights of their landlord because they were depriving the latter of the enjoyment
of his or her property rights.
Moreover, Judge Lorredo pointed out that complainants' own admission about the
tolerance by their landlord of their possession of the property was evidence against
them and was his basis in saying that they should therefore vacate the property.
Citing Biblical passages again, Judge Lorredo likewise argued that he merely
reminded complainants that God hates homosexuality. He denied that it was he who
expressed the view that complainants were in a homosexual relationship, but that, in
fact the TSN would show it was one of the complainants who pointed to the other as a
homosexual.
THE JUDICIAL INTEGRITY BOARD'S
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION
In its Report and Recommendation,17 the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) faulted
Judge Lorredo for declaring outright that complainants are not the owners of the
property and must therefore vacate the same during the preliminary conference where
he was encouraging the parties to reach an amicable settlement. The JIB held that by
doing so, Judge Lorredo virtually prejudged the case in favor of the plaintiffs therein
when he should have only explained the applicable law and directed the parties to make
concessions which they may or may not accept.
Worse, according to the JIB, Judge Lorredo admitted using the Bible in deciding
cases when he should have insulated himself from his religious beliefs and acted only
on the basis of the evidence and the law as shown by the records of the case before
him. As well, his remarks against homosexuality were irrelevant to the issue in the case
and had no place in the course of a preliminary conference. Complainants' alleged that
homosexuality was a personal and private matter between them which Judge Lorredo
should have respected and refrained from bringing to fore.
In all, the JIB found that the acts of Judge Lorredo constituted grave misconduct as
he flagrantly disregarded an established rule, which in this case was Canon 3 of the
New Code of Judicial Conduct on impartiality. As such, the JIB recommended that
Judge Lorredo be fined in the amount of P40,000.00.20 The recommendation of the JIB
reads:
At the outset, the Court notes that this is the second time that Judge Lorredo has
faced an administrative case for improper remarks he made in the course of a
preliminary conference. In Magno v. Lorredo,23 a similar ejectment case filed before the
sala of Judge Lorredo was initially dismissed by the latter for failure of the complainant
to appear for mediation. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the order
of Judge Lorredo and remanded the case before his court for further proceedings.
During the course of the preliminary conference, Judge Lorredo asked the
complainant's counsel, Atty. Pablo B. Magno (Atty. Magno): "What did you do to
convince those up there [RTC], that you were able to secure that kind of decision." In
reply, Atty. Magno answered: "I never follow-up on my cases, Your Honor." Judge
Lorredo also told the defendants that their lawyer is "mahina" or "hihina-hina," and
further uttered that "[g]inawa ko na nga ang desisyon dito sa kasong ito, at panalo kayo,
ngayon talo pa kayo sa RTC."24
Despite the stern warning that the above-cited case carried against Judge Lorredo,
he now faces a new administrative case stemming from his remarks directed at party-
litigants during the conduct of a preliminary conference. The Court wholly agrees with
the findings of the JIB that these remarks were inappropriate. The records will bear out
how Judge Lorredo badgered complainants with his questions about their sexual
orientation:
COURT: Teka, teka, hindi kayo mag-pinsan. Parang may narinig akong
pinsan kanina. Saan nanggaling yun? May word pinsan. Sa 'yo ba?
E. CABONITA: Hindi po. Yung Tita ko po sa taas nakatira.
COURT: Sinasabi ko lang bawal din sa batas yung, ah hindi, bawal sa diyos
yung homosexual ha?
xxxx
COURT: Girlfriend?
M. ESPEJON: Wala pa po.
COURT: Oh, tapos yung tinuturo niya ganun, yun tama? May bading ba sa
inyo?
M. ESPEJON: Ang masasagot ko, sasagot ho niya, ano, tita niya nakatira sa
taas. Mayordoma po ng may-ari.
COURT: Ang point ko lang, sa inyo mali, Thou shall not steal. Pagnanakaw
yun. May parusa yan. x x x30 (Italics supplied)
In his Comment, Judge Lorredo explained it was merely his intention to warn
complainants about God's dislike for homosexuals, and stressed it was on account of
one of them pointing to the other as homosexual which made him (Judge Lorredo) talk
more about God's dislike for homosexuals.
However, quite disturbingly, Judge Lorredo opined further in his Comment that
"[b]eing a homosexual pervert may be one of the reasons why a person is being
punished by God with not having a home of his own and with being ejected." According
to him, as well, "squatters or people who have no place to call their own are being
punished by God for their sins or for the sins of their ancestors.Judge Lorredo cited
Biblical passages to bolster his opinions and concluded that homosexuality was material
in the case.
The foregoing acts of Judge Lorredo illustrate how he violated anew Sections 1 and
6 of Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct on Propriety, as what he had done in
his first administrative case. These sections state:
CANON 4
PROPRIETY
Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the
performance of all the activities of a judge.
Furthermore, although Judge Lorredo has denied being averse to gays, his tactless
statements during the preliminary conference in Civil Case No. M-MNL-18-08450-SC
and in his Comment to the Complaint reveal otherwise. Going further along the TSN of
Civil Case No. M-MNL-18-08450-SC, even Judge Lorredo's co-judges were not spared
from his self-righteous observations:
COURT: Daing Judge bad[i]ng eh. Pag kinakausap ka hindi naman, akala
mo mas marunong sila sa Bible eh.
COURT: Kasi ang titigas ng ulo eh. Judge daw sila, akala nila alam na nila.
Puro sakit. Pagka, nagla-lunch kami kinukuwento niya, sakit ng tuhod, di
maka-akyat dito, puro pr[o]blema sa staff niya, kasi pagka-bad[i]ng,
tomboy, lesbian, ayaw ng Diyos yun. x x x35
Verily, with his statements, Judge Lorredo also fell short of heeding Sections 1, 2,
and 3 of Canon 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct on Equality, which provide:
CANON 5
EQUALITY
The statements Judge Lorredo made during the preliminary conference, and
especially in the Comment he filed in this case, are clearly tantamount to homophobic
slurs which have no place in our courts of law. The fact that they were made by no less
than a magistrate should rightfully upset the Court and must perforce be penalized. It
was not too long ago when the Court in Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. Commission on
Elections declared that "as far as this Court is concerned, our democracy precludes
using the religious or moral views of one part of the community to exclude from
consideration the values of other members of the community." Thus, it should come as
a matter of course for all judges to desist from any word or conduct that would show or
suggest anything other than inclusivity for members of the LGBTQIA+ community.
In the same manner, Judge Lorredo's language inside the courtroom and in his
pleading before the Court are also violative of Sections 1 and 2 of Canon 2 of the New
Code of Judicial Conduct. Corollary to Canon 4, Canon 2 also exhorts judges, as visible
representations of the law, to embody integrity in the discharge of their functions and
even in their personal demeanor, to wit:
CANON 2
INTEGRITY
Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial
office but also to the personal demeanor of judges.
SECTION 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above
reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in view of a reasonable
observer.
SECTION 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the
people's faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be
done but must also be seen to be done.
At the same time, the statements of Judge Lorredo during the preliminary
conference are in clear violation of CSC Resolution No. 01-0940 as a form of work-
related sexual harassment. Section 3(a)(3), Rule III of CSC Resolution No. 01-0940
provides that work-related sexual harassment may be committed under circumstances
wherein "the act or series of acts might reasonably be expected to cause
discrimination, insecurity, discomfort, offense or humiliation to a complainant
who may be a co-employee, applicant, customer, or ward of the person
complained of."
More particularly, Section 53(B)(3), Rule X classifies as a less grave offense those
"derogatory or degrading remarks or innuendoes directed toward the members of one
sex, or one's sexual orientation or used to describe a person."
Thus, in Juan de la Cruz (Concerned Citizen of Legazpi City) v. Carretas, the Court
reminded judges how they should possess the virtue of gravitas. The Court found the
respondent judge therein administratively liable for conduct unbecoming because of his
inappropriate side comments and display of arrogance and condescension to lawyers
and witnesses appearing before his court. The Court held that judges should be learned
in the law, dignified in demeanor, refined and temperate in speech, whether written or
spoken, and virtuous in character. Judges who fall short of these and are, on the
contrary, inconsiderate, discourteous or uncivil to lawyers, litigants or witnesses who
appear in their courts commit an impropriety and fail in their duty to reaffirm the people's
faith in the judiciary.
To be sure, the call to be virtuous in character does not give judges the authority to
be swayed by their religious beliefs and use the same with reckless abandon in the
conduct of their judicial functions. Again, as Section 6, Canon 4 of the New Code of
Judicial Conduct relevantly provides, judges must balance the exercise of their
freedoms with the preservation of the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality
and independence of the judiciary.
Unlike in Veneracion, however, the Court is unprepared to conclude here that Judge
Lorredo's judicial functions, duties and responsibilities were not entirely impaired by his
religious beliefs and convictions. As can be gleaned from the above-cited TSN during
the preliminary conference and by his own words in his Comment, Judge Lorredo
attempted to make a connection between complainants' supposed sexual orientation
and the ejectment case they were facing.
As well, he made the following declaration during the preliminary conference against
complainants, where he, again, invoked the Bible and wriggled in his religious beliefs:
COURT: Okay, eto ha. Hindi ko kayo puede pilitin. Puede [kayong] mag-hire
ng sangkatutak na lawyer, i-delay niyo 'to hanggang kaya i-delay pero
sa Bible, wala kayong lusot eh, Thou shall not steal. Kanila yun eh.
Hindi sa inyo. x x x Ta's sabi mo kanina, hindi na ko mani[ni]wala sa 'yo
eh. Sabi mo kanina, kasi ho agad-agad eh. Nung tinanong kita oh kailan,
puede ho ba kausapin, oh wala kayong intention na umalis eh. Ang tagal
ko [nang] Huwes eh. x x x Eto alam kong magbabayad, gusto niyang
magbayad eh. Ikaw ayaw mong umalis eh. Ayan ang may-ari oh.
Tatanong mo pa eh hindi naman yung lawyer [ang] naka-puwesto dun.
Hindi sa inyo yun, aminado kang hindi sa inyo. Ba't niyo pa pahihirapan
ang mga Alcantara, Advincula? Hindi ka ba maka-decide? Adult ka na
eh. Hindi sa 'yo yung property. Puede bang sabihin mo na sa kalaban mo
kung kailan kayo aalis? Para naman baka pag [narinig] niya okay sa
kanya, di okay rin kay attorney na magpapayo sa kanya, di
wala [nang] asuntuhan. Aalis na lang kayo ng tahimik. Oh, ano bang
piano niyo, i-delay? Oh, aalis na kayo?
xxxx
COURT: Hindi?
M. ESPEJON: Hindi po.
Judge Lorredo also candidly admitted in his Comment that he had, so far, "settled
101 cases using the Bible."46 While amicable settlement of cases is highly encouraged
and applauded in our jurisdiction, the acts by which Judge Lorredo was able to steer
and conduct the settlement of cases in his sala, as illustrated in the foregoing portions
of the TSN, are in direct contravention to the injunction of the Court in Veneracion which
forbids a judge's religious beliefs from interfering with his or her judicial functions.
In the same vein, it does not escape the Court's attention how Judge Lorredo
conducted the preliminary conference in an overbearing manner due to his desire to
resolve the case amicably and speedily. In Elgar v. Santos, Jr.,47 the Court found the
similar overbearing persistence of a judge to make the parties settle amicably and
speedily constitutive of simple misconduct, as the acts exceeded the bounds of
propriety and were perceived to be partial. The following excerpts from the TSN reveal
once again the uncalled-for acts of Judge Lorredo:
COURT: Eto, kanila yong property. Aminado naman kayong pinatira kayo
dun. Pag ayaw na nila, aalis kayo. Eh, the way I look at it, kumuha kayo
ng abogado eh. Anong purpose ng abogado? Ide-delay 'to? Piano ba
niyo i-delay?
E. CABONITA: Hindi po kasi ang gusto lang po kasi namin yung pagpapa-
alis sa amin, maayos na ano. Kasi pinapa-alis kasi nila kami doon ng
agad-agad nung time na yun
xxxx
COURT: Okay, eto ha. Hindi ko kayo puede pilitin. Puede [kayong] mag-hire
ng sangkatutak na lawyer i-delay niyo 'to hanggang kaya i-delay pero
sa Bible, wala kayong lusot eh, Thou shall not steal. Kanila yun eh. Hindi
sa inyo. x x x Ta's sabi mo kanina, hindi na ako mani[ni]wala sa 'yo eh.
Sabi mo kanina, kasi ho agad-agad eh. Nung tinanong kita oh kailan,
puede ho ba kausapin, oh wala kayong intention na umalis eh. Ang tagal
ko [nang] Huwes eh. x x x Eto alam kong magbabayad, gusto niyang
magbayad eh. Ikaw ayaw mong umalis eh. Ayan ang may-ari oh.
Tatanong mo pa eh hindi naman yung lawyer [ang] naka-puwesto dun.
Hindi sa inyo yun, aminado kang hindi sa inyo. Ba't niyo pa pahihirapan
ang mga Alcantara, Advincula? Hindi ka ba maka-decide? Adult ka na
eh. Hindi sa 'yo yung property. Puede bang sabihin mo na sa kalaban
mo kung kailan kayo aalis? Para naman baka pag narinig niya okay sa
kanya, di okay rin kay attorney na magpapayo sa kanya, di
wala [nang] asuntuhan. Aalis na lang kayo ng tahimik. Oh, ano bang
piano niyo, i-delay? Oh, aalis na kayo?48 (Italics supplied)
As to whether Judge Lorredo was really partial, however, the Court is unconvinced
that he was.
Apart from badgering complainants during the course of the preliminary conference,
there is insufficient evidence showing that Judge Lorredo unduly favored the other
parties in Civil Case No. M-MNL-18-08450-SC. The Court has declared, time and again,
that there must be clear and convincing proof to overcome the presumption that the
judge will undertake his noble role to dispense justice according to law and evidence
and without fear or favor.
None of these elements are present in this case. Although Judge Lorredo was
noticeably quick to brand complainants as unlawful occupants of the subject
property, he ostensibly anchored it on the admissions of complainants
themselves that they were not the owners of the property and were merely renting
it. Citing jurisprudential support, he also explained in his Comment that his
statements directed to complainants were "based on the rule that when
possession of the property is by tolerance of the landlord and is ended through
demand to vacate, failure or refusal to vacate is a ground for ejectment."
In Angping v. Ros,59 the Court specifically referred to lower court judges as playing
a pivotal role in the promotion of the people's faith in the judiciary. They were described
as front-liners who serve as the visible representations of the judicial branch at the
grassroots level in their interaction with litigants and those who do business with the
courts. Thus, the admonition that judges must avoid not only impropriety but also the
appearance of impropriety is more sternly applied to them.
All told, the Court finds Judge Lorredo administratively liable for his improper
remarks and overbearing demeanor and unwarranted acts during the preliminary
conference in Civil Case No. M-MNL-18-08450-SC; and for allowing his religious
beliefs to impair his judicial functions. While these offenses violate relevant
Canons of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, the Court, to reiterate, does not find
that they rise to the level of gross misconduct.
As regards the imposition of the penalties against Judge Lorredo, Boston Finance
and Investment Corporation v. Gonzalez64 instructs that if the respondent judge or
justice of the lower court is found guilty of multiple offenses under Rule 140 of the Rules
of Court, the Court shall impose separate penalties for each violation. Judge Lorredo's
overbearing demeanor and unwarranted acts during the preliminary conference in Civil
Case No. M-MNL-18-08450-SC and improper foisting of his religious beliefs in the
conduct of his judicial functions constitute simple misconduct. On the other hand, his
inappropriate remarks during the same proceedings and in his Comment in this case
constitute conduct unbecoming and work-related sexual harassment under CSC
Resolution No. 01-0940.
Under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 21-03-17-
SC,66 simple misconduct is classified as a less serious charge which is punishable by:
(1) suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor
more than three (3) months; or (2) a fine of not less than P35,000.00 but not exceeding
P100,000.00. For its part, conduct unbecoming is classified as a light charge which is
punishable by: (1) a fine of not less than P1,000.00 but not exceeding P35,000.00;
and/or; (2) censure; (3) reprimand; (4) admonition with warning.
Considering that this is Judge Lorredo's second administrative offense, the Court
deems it reasonable to impose against him the penalties of fine in the amounts of
P40,000.00 for simple misconduct, and P10,000.00 for conduct unbecoming and for
failing to live up once again to the degree of propriety required of him under Canon 4 of
the New Code of Judicial Conduct. The Court farther resolves to suspend Judge
Lorredo for thirty (30) days without pay, in accordance with CSC Resolution No. 01-
0940.
As a final word, the Court once again finds it imperative to remind members of
the bench that while not every error or mistake in the performance in their official
duties may render them administratively liable, absent proof of fraud, dishonesty,
corruption, or conscious and deliberate intent to cause an injustice, they are still
obliged, at all times, to observe propriety, discreetness and due care in the
performance of their official functions.
As the Court has consistently said in the past, obedience to the rule of law forms the
bedrock of our system of justice. If judges, under the guise of religious or political beliefs
were allowed to roam unrestricted beyond boundaries within which they are required by
law to exercise the duties of their office, then law becomes meaningless.
At the same time, the Court has always espoused care in the conduct of judicial
proceedings, ever sensitive not to unjustifiably offend the litigants and erode the public's
confidence in our justice system. Thus, any form of discrimination by reason of gender
or sexual orientation made by a judge and directed against any person with business
before the court shall never be tolerated and must be strongly rebuked.
Judge Lorredo must be reminded that the Court has already made a
recognition of the fact that, through the years, homosexual conduct, and perhaps
homosexuals themselves, have borne the brunt of societal disapproval. The
Court is cognizant that they have suffered enough marginalization and
discrimination within our society.
It is not difficult to imagine the reasons behind this censure — religious beliefs,
convictions about the preservation of marriage, family, and procreation, even dislike or
distrust of members of the LGBTQIA+ community themselves and their perceived
lifestyle.